Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 231–234 | Cite as

Indirect effects of granivory by harvester ants: plant species composition and reproductive increase near ant nests

  • Steven W. Rissing
Original Papers

Summary

Of 36 plant species surveyed, 6 were significantly associated with nests of the desert seed-harvester ant Veromessor pergandei or Pogonomyrmex rugosus; two other plant species were significantly absent from ant nests. Seeds of two common desert annuals, Schismus arabicus and Plantago insularis, realize a 15.6 and 6.5 fold increase (respectively) in number of fruits or seeds produced per plant growing in ant nest refuse piles compared to nearby controls. Mass of individual S. arabicus seed produced by plants growing in refuse piles also increased significantly. Schismus arabicus, P. insularis and other plants associated with ant nests do not have seeds with obvious appendages attractive to ants. Dispersal and reproductive increase of such seeds may represent a relatively primitive form of ant-plant dispersal devoid of seed morphological specializations. Alternatively, evolution of specialized seed structures for dispersal may be precluded by the assemblage of North American seed-harvester ants whose workers are significantly larger than those ants normally associated with elaiosome-attached seed dispersal. Large worker size may permit consumption of elaiosome and seed.

Keywords

Plant Species Indirect Effect Species Composition Seed Dispersal Morphological Specialization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bell EA (1984) Toxic compounds in seeds. In: Murray DR (ed) Seed Physiology, Vol 1 Development. Academic Press, New York-London, pp 246–264Google Scholar
  2. Berg RY (1975) Myrmecochorous plants in Australia and their dispersal by ants. Aust J Bot 23:475–508Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein RA, Gobbel M (1979) Partitioning of space in communities of ants. J Anim Ecol 48:931–942Google Scholar
  4. Bor NL (1960) The Grasses of Burma, Ceylon, India and Pakistan. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown JH (1975) Geographical ecology of desert rodents. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds), Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts USA, pp 315–341Google Scholar
  6. Brown JH, Reichman OJ, Davidson DW (1979) Granivory in desert ecosystems. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 10:201–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buckley RC (1982) Ant-plant interactions: a world review. In: Buckley RC (ed), Ant-plant Interactions in Australia. Dr W Junk, The Hague, pp 111–141Google Scholar
  8. Cody ML (1974) Competition and the Structure of Bird Communities. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole AC (1932) The ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis, Cr., associated with plant communities. Ohio J Sci 32:10–20Google Scholar
  10. Culver DC, Beattie AJ (1978) Myrmecochory in Viola: Dynamics of seed-ant interactions in some West Virginia species. J Ecol 66:53–72Google Scholar
  11. Davidson DW (1977) Foraging ecology and community organization in desert seed-eating ants. Ecology 58:725–737Google Scholar
  12. Davidson DW (1978) Size variability in the worker caste of a social insect (Veromessor pergandei Mayr) as a function of the competitive environment. Amer Nat 112:523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson DW, Morton SR (1981) Myrmecochory in some plants (F. Chenopodiaceae) of the Australian arid zone. Oecologia (Berlin) 50:357–366Google Scholar
  14. Dlusskii GM Saparlyev K (1975) The dynamics of activity in desert harvester ants. Ekologiya 6:79–85Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert LE (1979) Development of theory in the analysis of insect-plant relationships. In: Horn DJ, Stairs GR, Mitchell RD (eds) Analysis of Ecological Systems. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, pp 117–154Google Scholar
  16. Golley FB, Gentry JB (1964) Bioenergetics of the southern harvester ant Pogonomyrmex badius. Ecology 45:217–225Google Scholar
  17. Harper JL (1977) Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, New York-LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinrich B (1976) Foraging specializations of individual bumblebees. Ecol Monog 46:105–128Google Scholar
  19. Heinrich B (1979) “Majoring” and “minoring” by foraging bumblebees, Bombus vagans: an experimental analysis. Ecology 60:245–255Google Scholar
  20. Heithaus ER (1981) Seed predation by rodents on three ant-dispersed plants. Ecology 62:136–145Google Scholar
  21. Hitchcock AS (1971) Manual of Grasses of the United States. Vol 1. Dover, NYGoogle Scholar
  22. Inouye RS (1980) Density-dependent germination response by seeds of desert annuals. Oecologia (Berlin) 46:235–238Google Scholar
  23. Kearney TH, Peebles RH, and collaborators (1951) Arizona Flora. University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Kusnezov NN (1956) A comparative study of ants in desert regions of central Asia and South America. Am Nat 90:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milewski AV, Bond WJ (1982) Convergence of myrmecochory in mediterranean Australia and South Africa. In: Buckley RC (ed) Ant-plant interactions in Australia, Dr W Junk Publishers, The Hague, pp 89–98Google Scholar
  26. Moore LR (1978) Seed predation in the legume Crotalaria. II: Correlates of interplant variability in predation intensity. Oecologia (Berlin) 34:203–223Google Scholar
  27. Morton SR (1982) Granivory in the Australian arid zone: diversity of harvester ants and the structure of their communities. In: Barker W, Greenslade J (eds), Evolution of the Flora and Fauna of Arid Australia. Peacock, Adelaide, pp 257–262Google Scholar
  28. O'Dowd DJ, Hay ME (1980) Mutualisms between harvester ants and a desert ephemeral: seed escape from rodents. Ecology 61:531–540Google Scholar
  29. Pisarski B (1978) Comparison of various biomes. In: Brian ME (ed), Production Ecology of Ants and Termites. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 326–331Google Scholar
  30. Platt WJ, Weis IM (1977) Resource partitioning and competition within a guild of fugitive prairie plants. Am Nat 111:479–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Plowright RC, Hartling LK (1981) Red clover pollination by bumble bees: a study of the dynamics of a plant-pollinator relationship. J Ap Ecol 18:639–647Google Scholar
  32. Rabinowitz D, Rapp JK (1981) Dispersal abilities of seven sparse and common grasses from a Missouri prairie. Amer J Bot 68:616–624Google Scholar
  33. Reichman OJ (1975) Relationships between dimensions, weights, volumes, and calories of some Sonoran Desert seeds. Southwest Natur 20:573–575Google Scholar
  34. Rissing SW (1981) Foraging specializations of individual seed-harvester ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:149–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, Second ed. WH Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  36. Thompson PA (1981) Variations in seed size within populations of Silene dioica (L.) Clairv. in relation to habitat. Ann Bot 47:623–634Google Scholar
  37. Weis IM (1982) The effects of propagule size on germination and seedling growth in Mirabilis hirsuita. Can J Bot 60:1868–1874Google Scholar
  38. Westoby M, Rice B, Shelley JM, Haig D, Kohen JL (1982) Plants' use of ants for dispersal at West Head, New South Wales. In: Buckley (ed) Ant-plant Interactions in Australia. Dr W Junk Publishers, The Hague pp 75–87Google Scholar
  39. Wheeler J, Rissing SW (1975) Natural history of Veromessor pergandei. I. The nest. Pan-Pacific Entomol 51:205–216Google Scholar
  40. Wight JR, Nichols JT (1966) Effects of harvester ants on production of saltbush community. J Range Manage 19:68–71Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven W. Rissing
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations